Yep, looks like Fuji is filling out the X line. This one fits, I guess, between the X100s and the X-E1 based on the ability to change lenses, hit below the X100s in terms of other functionality. The lack of a viewfinder isn't a positive, personally.

They now have 3 models to choose from, no VF at all in X-M1, only electronic in X-E1, or both electronic and optical in X-Pro1. So what is there to complain about?

I have the X-Pro1 and X100s as spare, ditched X-E1 recently as I find the EVF uncomfortable to use (time lag). X-M1 should have the same IQ as the more expensive models, as the sensor is the same. Good way to enter the system, or cheaper spare body for those who need one. For landscape it would be fine, with the tilting screen and all.

They now have 3 models to choose from, no VF at all in X-M1, only electronic in X-E1, or both electronic and optical in X-Pro1. So what is there to complain about?

I have the X-Pro1 and X100s as spare, ditched X-E1 recently as I find the EVF uncomfortable to use (time lag). X-M1 should have the same IQ as the more expensive models, as the sensor is the same. Good way to enter the system, or cheaper spare body for those who need one. For landscape it would be fine, with the tilting screen and all.

I understand what the various models have as far as far as viewfinders. If I found everything else acceptable with this camera, I wouldn't buy it due to the lack of any viewfinder. What is the problem with that? It's no different from you ditching the X-E1 because it only has an EVF. You've got the X100s and X-Pro1 both with optical viewfinders, what is there to complain about?

That lack is striking in this case, since the X series has a strong association with innovations in eye-level viewfinders.

On the other hand, it is a very common and deliberate decision in the design of many such cameras, from every participant in the "big sensor compact camera" market, even Leica. So perhaps we should move beyond dismissing it as mere stupidity, and instead try to understand why, clearly, a very great number of customers for such cameras will choose a "rear screen only" camera even when showing enough seriousness about photography to pass on mainstream compacts in favor of a bulkier, more expensive option.

I will try to be non-cynical, and suggest that many people of the "post-film era" have trained for years on rear-screen composition, and have developed skills with them that us old curmudgeons lack, and so they see no value to even the modest extra cost and bulk on an eye-level EVF.

I'm not disputing that the manufacturers are free to do what they want with their design. And similarly we are free to decide whether a particular camera fits our individual wants/needs.

As far as the 'why' of no viewfinder, I think one reason may well be that there is a large audience who got into photography in the digital era with small P&S cameras that only allowed for composing on the rear LCD. There's also a huge audience that use cell phones as their primary camera and have to compose on the phone screen. Camera makers are always trying to attract new customers so forgoing the viewfinder makes for a very comfortable transition to those audiences. Further, the spate of new, advanced, fixed lens cameras makes for a wonderful transition to the cell phone audience as well who are used to composing with a fixed focal length; albeit one that's a bit wider than many of these fixed lens models.

I can see the advantage of a moveable screen for composing landscapes, in particular where one might use live view anyway. My old Coolpix 5000 had a rotating rear screen, that could be twisted so that the screen faced inwards, making stowing in a rucksack without scratching the screen easy. That sort of feature would be useful on a camera such as this, but the Coolpix 5000 had a viewfinder too, and I'd struggle with a camera that didn't have one. In certain lighting conditions, I could imagine having to drag a cape over my head - which probably takes the new Fuji X system to a whole new level of retro

I'm not disputing that the manufacturers are free to do what they want with their design. And similarly we are free to decide whether a particular camera fits our individual wants/needs.

As far as the 'why' of no viewfinder, I think one reason may well be that there is a large audience who got into photography in the digital era with small P&S cameras that only allowed for composing on the rear LCD. There's also a huge audience that use cell phones as their primary camera and have to compose on the phone screen. Camera makers are always trying to attract new customers so forgoing the viewfinder makes for a very comfortable transition to those audiences. Further, the spate of new, advanced, fixed lens cameras makes for a wonderful transition to the cell phone audience as well who are used to composing with a fixed focal length; albeit one that's a bit wider than many of these fixed lens models.

Read an article lately where the chap was out shooting fireworks and outside night performances and he noted "he had to use the old way of shooting with the viewfinder instead of the modern rear screen way." Perhaps this says it all.

Or everything old is new again if we equate live view or LCD composing to large format and/or medium format on a ground glass. Difference is, generally, those cameras are/were operated on a tripod so more stable (not always, granted). And for handheld shooting, there are often viewfinder options available, or they're held close to the body, rather than at arm's length, which is more stable. Press cameras? Sure, but cameras like the Crown Graphic, as an example, also had optional viewfinders that could be tailored to the FOV of a particular lens. And if using the ground glass, again, were held close to the body.

It IS possible to use a camera without a VF. I even know someone owning an OM-D and switching to the E-P5 because he seldom uses the VF and prefers the rear screen (only in strong light for instance he uses the VF). Some of his pics below.

Tiltable tactile screens are no toys, they are really usable to take pictures. We just need to be open minded and wonder why we need the VF, because we really need it or because we are used to it?. Even if we prefer the VF (I do), not having one is a real option.

I've done a fair bit of rear-screen pic-taking. I don't usually prefer it but I can manage just fine when needed. In fact, using the OM-D5's articulated rear screen to compose on a tripod is great! Rear-screen shooting isn't the sort of thing I'd buy into the X system for, though.

It IS possible to use a camera without a VF. I even know someone owning an OM-D and switching to the E-P5 because he seldom uses the VF and prefers the rear screen (only in strong light for instance he uses the VF). Some of his pics below.

Tiltable tactile screens are no toys, they are really usable to take pictures. We just need to be open minded and wonder why we need the VF, because we really need it or because we are used to it?. Even if we prefer the VF (I do), not having one is a real option.

If someone made a rear screen that had a dopter correction possibility, I could see using them. Until then I will decline wearing my reading glasses all the time and use the viewfinder.